Judgment

HANSARIA, JJ.

( 1 ) THE point for determination in this appeal is as to whether land included in shamilat deh which had come to be vested in the concerned Gram Panchayat by virtue of Section 3 (a) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1953 (for short, the 1953 Act) got divested because of what has been mentioned in the proviso to Rule 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965, framed in exercise of powers conferred by Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter the panchayat Act ).

( 2 ) THE facts lie in narrow compass and are not disputed. The same are that the lands with which this appeal is concerned were being used, to start with, for common purposes like gair mumkin rasta and gao charand but were shown as shamilat deh afterwards and came to be vested in the concerned Gram Panchayat pursuant to what has been provided in Section 3 of the 1953 Act. Pursuant to what was provided in Haryana Municipal Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1974, the land was mutated in the name of the appellant. As that Act, however, came to be declared void by a Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the respondents, who were the owners of the lands earlier, filed a suit seeking declaration that the said land got reverted to them because of what has been mentioned in the aforesaid proviso. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, whereupon the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which came to be allowed by Addl. District Judge, Karnal. On the appellant approaching the High Court in second appeal, the same came to be dismissed in limine. Hence this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THERE being no dispute as to the vesting of the land pursuant to 1953 Act in the concerned Gram Panchayat, all that we are required to decide is whether the stand of the plaintiffs-respondents that the same got reverted to them pursuant to what has been mentioned in the aforesaid proviso is correct or not.

( 4 ) TO decide the aforesaid question, let Rule 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965 be noted, which reads as under :

"if the whole of Sabha area is included in Municipality, cantonment or notified area all rights, obligations, property, assets and liabilities if any, whether arising out of any contract or otherwise shall vest in the Municipal Committee, Cantonment Board or Notified Area Committee as the case may be.

PROVIDED that the land, which vests in the panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 or the land management and control of which vest in the panchayat under the East Punjab Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation 1948 shall revert to the co-sharers and owners thereof. "

( 5 ) THE respondents first contention is that for the appellant to claim vesting of the land in it, the first requirement is that the whole of the sabha area must have been included in it. It is then urged that even if this part of the requirement be held to be satisfied, because of what has been stated in the aforesaid proviso, the land did revert to them. The further leaf of this argument is that the omission of the proviso by notification dated 22/12/1976 cannot alter the position inasmuch as the area of village Gudha, in which the land is admittedly situate, had been declared to be part of notified area on 6-10-75 ; and so, the proviso operated by its own force on that date, because of which its omission later on could not alter the legal position.

( 6 ) INSOFAR as the first contention is concerned, Shri Ashri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, brings to our notice what has been stated in sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Panchayat Act, which is in the following language :-

if the whole of the area of a Gram Panchayat is included in municipality, cantonment, notified area or small town area, the Gram Panchayat shall cease to exist and it assets and liabilities shall be disposed of in the manner prescribed. If a part of such area is so included, its jurisdiction shall be reduced by that part. " (